Korach: The Limits of the Self Made Man Is disagreement a good thing? The Mishnah in the Ethics of our Fathers states: Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven is destined to endure; one that is not for the sake of Heaven is not destined to endure. Which is a dispute that is for the sake of Heaven? The dispute(s) between Hillel and Shamai. Which is a dispute that is not for the sake of Heaven? The dispute of Korach and all his company. The house of Hillel and House of Shammi disagree hundreds of times in the Talmud. Generally speaking, Hillel was more kind and lenient, while Shammai was more strict and demanding. Yet, Shammai and Hillel's disputes endure. Those disputes enhanced our understanding of the Divine will, as both Shammai and Hillel respected each other and understood that both the severity/discipline of Shammai as well as the loving kindness of Hillel, were necessary. Their disputes were only about the proper balance between the two. While the disputes of Hillel and Shammai exemplify healthy, enduring disagreement, the Mishnah offers a stark counterpoint in the rebellion of Korach. His conflict, unlike theirs, was not merely about different approaches to Divine will, but stemmed from a fundamental opposition to the very principle of a healthy interaction with others The Zohar explains that the original motivation for Korach's rebellion against Moses and Aaron was because Korah embodied the attribute of Gevurah, strength and discipline, whereas Aaron epitomized the attribute of Chesed, love and kindness. Korach was categorically opposed to kindness. Korach was of the tribe of Levi, who rose to prominence by virtue of their own actions, when they alone remained loyal to G-d and did not serve the golden calf; Aaron, by contrast, did not earn the priesthood; rather, he was selected by Divine kindness. Aaron's priesthood was dedicated to inspiring the people and eliciting Divine blessing on their behalf. Korach, the self-made man, believed that inspiration must come from within. It must be self-generated for it to be meaningful. He identified with the attribute of judgment, which advocated giving to each person only what they deserve. No need for a leader who will inspire and share his intense inspiration, creating a community who are invigorated and enhanced by each other. To Korach, if the inspiration is no self generated, if one has to receive it from others, that robs them of their sense of fulfillment and accomplishment, Korach appreciates Gevarh, strength and discipline, because he wants to feel that he earned his own blessing and place in the world. The end of the story is tragic. The earth opened its mouth and swallowed Korach. A Person relying solely on self, who is not open to receive from others, will, ultimately, implode. Creation is inherently imperfect and flawed. We need the sense of owning our success, of being self-sufficient, but we also need love. We need kindness. We need to receive from other people. We need to receive from G-d. Aaron is the model of how we open ourselves to the blessing from above. Remembering that we are not self standing. We are in a relationship. We need not to give and we need to receive. Aaron reminds us to open ourselves to experience the blessing that G-d showers upon us, and to share those blessings with the people in our lives.
Blog - Torah Insights
Korach: The Limits of the Self Made Man - קורח
The Joy of the Land of Israel - שלח
The Joy of the Land of Israel It was a devastating verdict. It was decreed that as a result of the Jewish people accepting the negative report about the Land of Israel, they were to remain in the desert for forty years. Only the subsequent generation would merit entry into the promised Land. Yet immediately after the decree was issued, the Torah presents two commandments that are relevant specifically in the Land of Israel: the libation of grain, oil, and wine when offering sacrifices in the temple, and the commandment of Challah, the separating and gifting of the first portion of the dough to G-d: The Lord spoke to Moses saying: Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When you arrive in the Land of your dwelling place, which I am giving you,… The one who brings his offering to the Lord shall present a meal offering containing one tenth fine flour mixed with a quarter of a hin of oil. And a quarter of a hin of wine for a libation… (Numbers 15:1-5) The Lord spoke to Moses saying: Speak to the children of Israel and you shall say to them, When you arrive in the Land to which I am bringing you, and you eat from the bread of the Land, you shall set aside a gift for the Lord. The first portion of your dough, you shall separate a loaf for a gift; (Numbers 15:17-20) Rashi points out that these commandments were, in fact, encouragement for the Jewish people, reassuring them of G-d’s commitment to bring them into the holy Land, where these commandments could be practiced: “When you arrive: He informed them that they would enter the Land.” There is, however, a deeper connection between the story of the spies and the commandments regarding the grain, oil, and wine of the Land. The spies did not want to enter the Land and engage in agriculture because of their fear that the Land would pull them away from their connection to spirituality and holiness. “A land that devours its inhabitants” is how they described Israel. No doubt they remembered the story of the Garden of Eden, where G-d told Adam, “Cursed be the ground for your sake; with toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life”. They assumed that working the soil was hard work, ladened with the sadness of being expelled from Eden while being forced to extract sustenance from the cursed earth. The Torah, therefore, states, “It will be when”. The Talmudic teaches that whenever the verse uses the term “Vehaya”, “and it will be,” it is an expression of joy. The Torah highlights the joy of entering the Land of Israel. Indeed, the earth was cursed in the days of Adam, but that was true only at the time when the earth was disconnected from its spiritual source. When the Jewish people enter the Land and infuse it with holiness, they use its grain, oil, and wine as a means to connect to G-d. This is where the greatest joy lies. The ultimate joy is not in the desert, seeking to escape the material and cleave to the spiritual, but rather in the Land of Israel, where the soil itself becomes holy and inspires a deeper connection to G-d. Adapted from the Sfas Emes
Who is “He”? Who was the One who Made the Menorah? - בהעלותך
Who is “He”? Who was the One who Made the Menorah? The future seemed promising. The Jewish people were set to travel the eleven-day journey from Sinai to the Promised Land. In the last two portions, we read the detailed instructions of how the people would camp and travel in an orderly fashion, surrounding - and anchored by - the Temple. Yet, as they embarked on the journey there was a breakdown. Story after story of complaints, rebellion, and rejection of the land of Israel; the eleven-day journey turned into a forty-year venture. How are we to perceive these events? The opening commandment of the Parsha may provide a clue. The Torah reiterates the commandment that Aaron light the Menorah in the Temple. Surprisingly, although this was clearly stated earlier in the book of Exodus, the Torah describes how the Menorah was fashioned: This was the form of the menorah: hammered work of gold, from its base to its flower it was hammered work; according to the form that the Lord had shown Moses, so did he construct the menorah. (Numbers 8:4) Rashi quotes the words “So did he construct the Menorah”, and offers two suggestions as to who this “he” is; who is the one who made the Menorah? So did he construct the Menorah. I.e., the one who made it. The Aggadic Midrash states that it was made by itself through the Holy One, Blessed is He. Rashi offers two interpretations. The first is that the Menorah was made by man (by Moses, according to most opinions), yet the Torah uses the word “he“ because the identity of the creator of the Menorah is not relevant at this point in the story. The second interpretation is that “he” refers to G-d. The Midrash teaches that the Menorah was formed by G-d: “Moses found difficulty with it, the Holy One, blessed is He, said to him, “Cast the talent [equivalent to sixty-four pounds of gold] into the fire, and it will be made by itself. But why is the Torah vague on this matter? Why use the term “he”, instead of clearly stating whether it was G-d or Moses? The Rebbe offers a novel explanation: Both of Rashi’s interpretations are true. “He” refers to both G-d and to Moses, because the Menorah is a partnership between the human and the Divine. Although the final product would be formed by the power of the Divine, the human being must contribute to create the inspiration and spiritual transformation represented by the Menorah. Returning to our opening question, how are we to comprehend the events in our Parsha? Perhaps the Torah begins the portion of the forty year journey by introducing the Menorah in order to teach us that the obstacles and challenges of the journey are not a setback but a critical part of the spiritual development of the people. The Jewish people were tasked with being a Menorah, a light onto the nations. Yet, G-d desired a partnership. The Menorah would be created by itself, and the spiritual light that the Jewish people would reflect would be far greater than anything they could create on their own; yet, they would have to participate in its creation. They would have to work through the difficult task of generating inspiration, faith, and commitment on their own. The journey seems like a complete breakdown of faith and of the values that Moses sought to teach, yet in reality, in these pages we are watching up close the formation of the partnership, the Menorah being made by both the inspiration and blessing from above, but also by human contribution and effort.
Are There Contradictions in The Torah? - נשא
Are There Contradictions in The Torah? What do we do when we find two Torah verses contradicting each other? Call the publisher and ask if, by chance, it is a printing mistake? Assume that one of the verses is somehow incorrect? The answer is simple: look for a third verse that will reconcile the apparent contradiction. One example of the above principle, one of the thirteen general principles by which the Bible is interpreted, is in the final verse of our Parsha, where the Torah describes how Moses would hear the word of G-d in the Tabernacle - the “tent of meeting”. The verse states: When Moses would come into the Tent of Meeting to speak with Him, he would hear the voice speaking to him from the two cherubim above the covering which was over the Ark of Testimony, and He spoke to him. (Numbers 7:89) Rashi points out that there are other verses that diverge in the description of where the voice of G-d emerged from: When Moses would enter: In the book of Exodus, the Torah states that the voice came from the “tent of meeting” implying in the outer chamber of the tent. In the book of Leviticus, however, the Torah states that the voice came from the inner chamber, “from above the ark cover”. What do we do about this contradiction? We look to the book of Numbers which reconciles the matter. Moses stood in the tent of meeting, in the outer chamber of the sanctuary, and heard the voice emerging from the inner chamber. Ok, crisis averted, contradiction resolved. But we still need to understand why does the Torah communicate in such a cumbersome manner? Why not state only the third verse? Why first create the apparent contradiction? The apparent contradiction captures a tension. Whenever opposite points converge, the Torah highlights each of the extremes, which creates the apparent contradiction, and then introduces the third verse to highlight that within this space, both extremes are fused. The temple represents the fusion of matter and spirit, a fusion of the physical and the spiritual. The temple is the connection point between the infinite G-d and mortal man. There can be no greater contradiction than bringing together these extremes. The Torah, therefore, lays out two distinct verses, one describing the voice of G-d emerging from between the Cherubim, in the inner chamber of the temple, the place where no human would enter (except for the High Priest who would enter but once a year on Yom Kippur), representing the domain of the infinite G-d, and another verse highlighting the opposite extreme, the voice emerging from the tent of meeting, the space within the temple that is the human domain. For, in essence, the temple is a contradiction, a seemingly absurd attempt to fuse the finite and the infinite. And then comes the third verse, which reconciles the two and highlights the power of the Jewish people to create a home for G-d that will fuse the two extremes of heaven and earth, physical and spiritual, and affect the marriage between God and the Jewish people. Adapted from the teachings of the Rebbe, Shabbos Naso 5749 (1989)